Re: eContentType for detached signatures

We agree that having a id-ct-mime would be a good thing. We also seem to agree that id-ct-asciiTextWithCRLF signals that the content must be be processed with the exact canonicalization specified in RFC 5485 before signing and validation. I was wrong when I said that I didn't see the need for the type for the content type you are focused on; I was actually looking at the other two types that were defined in RFC 5485, id-ct-xml and id-ct-pdf, which do not use the canonicalization rules given in the RFC. It was from there that I worry that this indicates that all types, not only those that need canonicalization, need to be defined, given that we have no definition for any.

This thread was prompted by Russ asking that, when Internet Drafts and RFCs no longer are expected to be all-ASCII, do we need another CMS content type. To me, this means making up a new canonicalization form for these, but we will also need to make one up for all the for other types that might be published. Further, it pointed out to me that the canonicalization that is defined in RFC 5485 is already fragile. It doesn't apply to two of the types defined in that RFC, and it makes a false assumption that all inputs are really ASCII (sometimes, non-ASCII characters slip through).

So, I still question whether or not RFC 5485 did the right thing in defining id-ct-xml and id-ct-pdf, and particularly in not defining something that could be called id-ct-unknown.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime